Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36314865›Full record

ArticleExperimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.)2022

Increasing adverse drug events extraction robustness on social media: Case study on negation and speculation.

Simone Scaboro, Beatrice Portelli, Emmanuele Chersoni, Enrico Santus, Giuseppe Serra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Simone ScaboroDepartment of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics, University of Udine, Udine 33100, Italy.
Beatrice PortelliDepartment of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics, University of Udine, Udine 33100, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8887-616X
Emmanuele ChersoniDepartment of Chinese and Bilingual Studies, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom 999077, Hong Kong.
Enrico SantusDecision Science and Advanced Analytics for MAPV & RA, Bayer, Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Whippany, NJ 07981-1544, USA.
Giuseppe SerraDepartment of Mathematics, Computer Science and Physics, University of Udine, Udine 33100, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the last decade, an increasing number of users have started reporting adverse drug events (ADEs) on social media platforms, blogs, and health forums. Given the large volume of reports, pharmacovigilance has focused on ways to use natural language processing (NLP) techniques to rapidly examine these large collections of text, detecting mentions of drug-related adverse reactions to trigger medical investigations. However, despite the growing interest in the task and the advances in NLP, the robustness of these models in face of linguistic phenomena such as negations and speculations is an open research question. Negations and speculations are pervasive phenomena in natural language and can severely hamper the ability of an automated system to discriminate between factual and non-factual statements in text. In this article, we take into consideration four state-of-the-art systems for ADE detection on social media texts. We introduce SNAX, a benchmark to test their performance against samples containing negated and speculated ADEs, showing their fragility against these phenomena. We then introduce two possible strategies to increase the robustness of these models, showing that both of them bring significant increases in performance, lowering the number of spurious entities predicted by the models by 60% for negation and 80% for speculations.

Indexed as

Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsSocial MediaHumansNatural Language ProcessingPharmacovigilanceAdverse drug eventsdeep learningdigital pharmacovigilancelinguistic phenomenanatural language processingsocial mediaTwitter

Identifiers

PMID36314865
PMCPMC9791307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.